Re: Heads up - Plea for allocating a /8 to ISPs

Off list. Knowing who Christopher is currently working for/with,
and no offence to him, because I don't know how long he has worked
there, his organisation know all about 1/8, because I've seen his
organisation ask for 1/8 to be turned into an RFC1918 address at an
IPv6 conference a few years ago - and I've been at another ISP on the
receiving end of being asked to announce it to them for nothing more
than monitoring purposes. Geoff Huston used to work for them for a quite
while too ;-)

(Australia is a pretty small place :-) )

On Thu, 11 Nov 2010 09:41:46 +0100
Marco Hogewoning <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Unless I miss something, the proposal is not at all to add a 4th prefix to the 3 of RFC1918.
> > It is only that one /8 be neither in the global address space nor in the private address space of RFC 1918. 
> > Thus, ISPs can use it in place of the 10/8 they use today, and thus eliminate conflicts with some of the customer sites that use 10/8.
> > One /8 is necessary AND SUFFICIENT to do this.
> 
> 
> And won't solve a thing as within days people start using it like it's 10/8. Oh, I'm merging two companies, address conflict, know what let's use XX/8. For more examples, see the work of Geoff Huston and others on the traffic in 1/8. People weren't supposed to use that one as well.
> 
> MarcoH
> (no hats)
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops